Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the State of Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate to restrain recovery of damages and threatened eviction from a portion of premises in Wright Gunj, Ghaziabad. The plaintiff claimed to be a duly allotted tenant and later a direct tenant of the landlord, while the District Magistrate issued notices under sections 3 and 12 of the U.P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery & Eviction) Act, 1952, treating the plaintiff as being in unauthorised occupation and assessing damages at Rs. 1,522/10/9 for the period December 15, 1949 to November 21, 1955. The defendants contended that the premises had been requisitioned under the Defence of India Rules in 1946 and derequisitioned in 1955, and that the plaintiff occupied without a valid allotment order. The trial court decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction against recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue; the first appellate court and the High Court dismissed the defendants' appeals. The High Court relied on an earlier decision in Shri Sripat Rai v. District Magistrate, Banaras and held that the Act could not be made applicable to a case where letting or possession predated the Act, and since the plaintiff came into possession before the Act, State action was invalid and section 15 was no bar. The State appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the Act applied to pre-Act lettings, requisitions, or unauthorised occupations. It held that the High Court's view was incorrect; the Act's scheme and purpose indicate that summary procedure under sections 4, 6, and 12 is available for arrears of rent and damages irrespective of when occupation commenced, as there is no vested right in procedure. However, the Court then examined whether the premises were 'Government premises' under section 2(c) of the Act, which requires proof of requisition or ownership. The appellants had not produced a valid order of requisition under rule 81(2)(bb) of the Defence of India Rules or a notification under rule 75A, and no delegation of power under section 2(5) of the Defence of India Act was shown. Therefore, on the material on record, the premises could not be held to be Government premises, and the suit was not barred under section 15. The Supreme Court also affirmed that a party may support a decree on grounds raised but rejected or not considered by lower courts, by analogy to Order 41 Rule 22 CPC, provided the decree is not destroyed. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, though not on the High Court's reasoning. The final outcome favoured the plaintiff, as the State's appeal failed because the premises were not proved to be Government premises.
Headnote
A) Rent Recovery and Eviction - Applicability of U.P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery & Eviction) Act, 1952 to Pre-Act Letting, Requisition or Unauthorised Occupation - Sections 2(c), 2(f), 2(h), 2(r), 4, 6, 12, 14, 16 of U.P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery & Eviction) Act, 1952 - The High Court held the Act cannot apply where letting or possession predated the Act; the Supreme Court held this view runs counter to the scheme and purpose of the Act, which provides summary procedure for recovery of rent and damages irrespective of when occupation commenced, as there is no vested right in procedure and the Act applies if premises are Government premises - Held that the Act can apply to arrears of rent and damages for unauthorized occupation even where letting or requisition predated the Act (Paras 1-7). B) Government Premises - Proof of Requisition under Defence of India Rules - Section 2(c) of U.P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery & Eviction) Act, 1952; Rules 75A, 81(2)(bb) of Defence of India Rules, 1939; Section 2(5) of Defence of India Act, 1939 - The appellants claimed the premises were requisitioned under the Defence of India Rules, making them Government premises and barring the suit under section 15; however, no valid order of requisition under rule 81(2)(bb) or notification under rule 75A was produced, and delegation of power under section 2(5) of the Defence of India Act was not shown - Held on material on record, premises not proved to be Government premises within section 2(c), so section 15 bar not attracted (Paras 1-7). C) Civil Procedure - Supporting Decree on Grounds Rejected or Not Considered by Lower Courts - Order 41 Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The respondent sought to support the High Court decree on grounds that were raised but rejected or not considered by the High Court, namely absence of valid requisition; the Supreme Court reiterated it is well settled that a party can recanvass such grounds to support a decree, provided the decree is not mutilated or destroyed - Held the respondent could rely on the lack of proof of requisition to sustain the dismissal, and appeal dismissed (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the U.P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery & Eviction) Act, 1952 applies to a case where letting had been done or requisition had been made or unauthorised occupation had commenced prior to the passing of the Act; whether the suit premises were Government premises under section 2(c) of the Act so as to bar the suit under section 15; and whether a party can support a decree on grounds raised before the High Court but rejected or even not considered by it.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court held the High Court's general proposition that the Act did not apply to pre-Act lettings or requisitions to be incorrect. However, on the material on record, no valid order of requisition under rule 81(2)(bb) of Defence of India Rules or notification under rule 75A was produced, and no delegation of power under section 2(5) of Defence of India Act was shown. Therefore, the premises could not be held to be Government premises under section 2(c) of the U.P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery & Eviction) Act, 1952, and the suit was not barred under section 15. The Court also affirmed that a party can support a decree on grounds raised but rejected or not considered by lower courts under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC.
Law Points
- U.P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery & Eviction) Act
- 1952 applies to pre-Act lettings
- requisitions
- and unauthorised occupations
- no vested right in procedure so summary remedy available
- premises must be proved to be Government premises under section 2(c) for section 15 bar
- absence of valid requisition order means premises not Government premises
- party can support decree on grounds rejected or not considered by lower courts under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC.
